Reconstruction 8.3 (2008)


Return to Contents»

 

Read, Rupert. Philosophy for Life. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007.

 

<1> One of the tasks of a reviewer is to find and recommend the proper readership of a given book. Some books are highly specialized; some are introductory enough to be used in class, while others are for the general public. This relatively minor task is difficult to achieve with Rupert Read's Philosophy for Life. As the subtitle indicates, this short manuscript is meant to apply "philosophy in politics and culture." In recent years, we have seen a number of books – and entire series – dedicated to bringing philosophy to ordinary life. Such works usually flesh out and clarify a philosophical theme or a philosopher's work in clear terms and proceed to apply it to more available issues – usually from popular culture. Read's book does not choose this style, but I am not convinced his way leads to any further or better application of philosophy to life.

<2> The book is described as a personal journey; it is very well written and is a quick read for anyone. It explores four fundamental topics: Environment, Religion, Politics, and Art. Each section begins with an editorial introduction, written by M.A. Lavery, situating and outlining the material. The first three topics get the longest and best treatment. The section on art operates almost as an appendix, applying previous remarks to the world of art.

<3> The overall theme is indeed life, plain and simple, which explains why Read begins his work on the environment, and the green-plot weaves much of the book together. Read argues that we are not isolated individuals worthy of philosophical analyses. We are individuals against the backdrop of a world. But "world" here is not limited to the cultural or contextual fabric; it truly means the world: nurture and nature. From this angle, Read brings together a number of philosophers, to the point of arguing that Dewey and Wittgenstein "are in the end philosophers of and for the green movement."

<4> This early maneuver, replicated throughout the book, is precisely why Philosophy for Life is difficult to classify. Read does not provide enough arguments for those who know Wittgenstein and Dewey to be convinced that these are the philosophers of the green movement; yet he uses enough philosophy that a novice could be lost, though still taken by the charm of his argument and style of writing.

<5> Some chapters, such as "Religion without Belief" provide some interesting philosophical positions. He rightly criticizes Rawls (and liberalism) for neglecting the content of religious thought. I can readily imagine teaching that chapter after having assigned Rawls in my courses. It is a learned application. But the chapter on "Rings, Power, Fear and Politics" is remarkably different. Rings here refer to the Lord of the Rings; no philosophical background is needed and one can enjoy the chapter on its own terms.

<6> This is indeed the trouble with the book. It seems as though I should read a chapter for myself, pass the book to a friend with some philosophical background to read another one, and then perhaps lend it to someone who has no philosophical background to enjoy other parts. I am actually convinced that a professional philosopher would have a hard time with the whole book. The chapter on the question of death and dying, for instance, flies through important concepts, including Heidegger's being-toward-death that becomes being-toward-life! While the Rawls chapter at least fleshed out some of the basic principles of liberalism, here "existentialism" is given a summary treatment that serves Read's overall argument about the importance of life, but frustrates anyone who has read Heidegger.

<7> There is however a way to read from start to finish without worrying too much about philosophy. If one is roughly politically sympathetic to Read's leftist position – and many academics are – then it is a fun read. Even though the work is named Philosophy for Life, it is mostly providing some vague philosophical insights to those who already share Read's politics. The section on Politics, for instance, is comprised of two chapters: the aforementioned one on the Lord of the Rings and one entitled "How I learned to Love Noam Chomsky." This chapter makes an interesting use of Wittgenstein for politics, by giving Chomsky credit for describing political events instead of using "metaphysical" concepts in politics. But do all readers – and the book is clearly marketed to non-specialists – understand the problem of metaphysics in politics? Would they leave the book thinking that Wittgenstein is a good political philosopher (which he was not)? And if one is to apply philosophy to politics, aren't there better – and less controversial – examples than Chomsky?

<8> This leads me to a genuine concern. Since politically I am in agreement with Read, I seem to only be disgruntled by the book's organization and the uncomfortably varying depth of his arguments. But no doubt were I on the other side of the political spectrum, I would be far less charitable and would not hesitate to assume that the philosophical problems are symptomatic of his politics. Read is currently the lead candidate for the Green Party of England and Wales for the European elections of 2009; he has clearly put philosophy to good use. And despite my skepticism about this book, it certainly underscores his unmistakable passion.


Farhang Erfani, Ph.D.
Department of Philosophy and Religion
American University


Return to Top»



ISSN: 1547-4348. All material contained within this site is copyrighted by the identified author. If no author is identified in relation to content, that content is © Reconstruction, 2002-2016.